A A A A A

(Inactive) Web Best Practices: Teleconference Details

Teleconference details

Agenda

1. Discussion of IITAA Update
  • Harmonization with Section 508/WCAG 2.0 issue
  • Review of techniques for WCAG 2.0 requirement 1.3.1

2 Update on Elections Website

3. PDF Accessibility Best Practices
  • http://webaccessibility.cita.illinois.edu/design/pdf/
  • Review updated organization and rules
  • Review PDF evaluation procedures
  • "http://webaccessibility.cita.illinois.edu/evaluate/pdf/":http://webaccessibility.cita.illinois.edu/evaluate/pdf/
  • Assign people to update sections of the best practices

4. New Issues

Minutes

1. Discussion of IITAA Update
  • Harmonization with Section 508/WCAG 2.0 issue
  • Review of techniques for WCAG 2.0 requirement 1.1.1 and 1.3.1
  • MS: 1.1.1 is simplier than 1.3.1
  • MS: We spent more time reading the documents, the whole success criteria is designed to be technology neutral
  • MS: The tests criteria were not designed to be automatically tested and the result is true and false no matter how complex the test
  • MS: There are many manual subjective tests
  • MS: The techniques are the technology specific means for the success criteria
  • MS: The techniques are not normative, for a given technology at least do
  • JG: Normative means not required in the W3C process
  • MS: They definitely leave the door open for other groups to define techniques
  • MS: We have received a few more responses on the survey
  • MS: Most want harmonization, but with specific techniques
  • MS: Can we use the WCAG 2.0?
  • MS: We can probably use some of it
  • MS: If you are looking at “how to meet 1.1.1”
  • MS: There is more that 12 techniques are presented as situations
  • MS: A-F situations, first look at your page and find the situations that apply
  • MS: Example for a logo, use technique from a list based on the features of the technique for H37 probably applies
  • MS: The link H37 provides examples
  • MS: If we look at the way techniques are presented, indented techniques are additional requirements
  • MS: Complex organization of techniques
  • JM: Clearer definitions of situations
  • JM: It took some time to figure out the situations
  • MS: Many of the techniques were part of different requirements
  • MS: 1.3.1 has several situations depending on the technologies HTML. PDF, plain text, Flash
  • MS: The first item is G115 and H49 an HTML technique
  • JG: Does the document talk about using accessible technologies
  • MS: Not in the techniques document, there does not seem to be any preferences for technologies
  • JG: So if you want to advocate the use of HTML instead of Flash WCAG 2.0 will not help
  • MS: Seems to be round about way of saying you need to have technologies that support accessibility, but no examples or recommendations
  • MS: We have a desire to define techniques, we can define techniques and define how they support success criteria
  • MS: We could very different techniques
  • RS: we don’t have to say this technique satisfies this technique
  • MS: I think we will want to
  • MS: We can break up the techniques into technology
  • MS: Its organized by accessibility concepts, rather than technology specifics
  • MS: We did IITAA that way since it makes more sense to developers
  • JG: Any other comments?
  • MS: Do we all feel a document organized by HTML markup, as opposed to success criteria make sense?
  • HR: Are the recommendations does it apply to more than HTML?
  • MS: Anything that is web based
  • MS: They do have a draft technique for flash
  • MS: We are imaging a techniques document based on markup mapped to techniques documents
  • NH: I have been thinking about harmonization, how do you integrate into WCAG, maybe synchronize to guidelines, if it is just HTML elements you have this glossary, glossary does not help understand principles
  • NH: for 1.1.1 it is 1.1 Text Alternatives
  • MS: Maybe we could try organizing techniques by markup or techniques
  • MS: The federal government will probably use the success criteria level
  • MS: What we have seen is that a single technique satisfies more that one success criteria
  • NH: We have IITAA 1.0 and Best Practices structure
  • MS: We have to have a mapping between what they have and what we have
  • MS: We should be able to map

2 Update on Elections Website

3. PDF Accessibility Best Practices
  • http://webaccessibility.cita.illinois.edu/design/pdf/
  • Review updated organization and rules
  • Review PDF evaluation procedures
  • http://webaccessibility.cita.illinois.edu/evaluate/pdf/
  • Assign people to update sections of the best practices
  • CD: Headers and footers should be marked as artifact
  • NH: The first rule is pass/fail
  • JG: For rule one is one tag enough?
  • MS: There is a scenario, where you have a scanned image, so there are examples of one element containing all the content
  • JG: It has to have a tagging layer
  • MS: yes
  • MS: From a manual check perspective it is the TITLE bar that could be tested
  • CD: I just opened one up in Preview it does show up in the title bar
  • ACTION: Change to manual check of the TITLE bar
  • CD: MS does the other check for TITLE
  • NH: Is it better to have a TITLE than filename?
  • MS: I am not sure their is a preference, we what the text to be good
  • JG: This needs to change

Participants